Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 23 79 PC MinutesApril 23, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a work session on Monday, April 23, 1979, 4:00 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, to continue work on the proposed zoning text. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. James Skove; and Dr. James Moore. Absent were Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Ot'i.er officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Col. Washington established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Mr. Tucker explained in general the provisions of R-6, R-10, and a,15 nor various density breakdowns in the higher density residential Districts. R-6 Residential: Mr. Tucker said that this district could be used where there are currently R-2 and R-3 zonings. He explained the uses by right noting that this is basically the same as the R-4 with the exception of the attached units. The standard density provided is six dwellings per acre, with 9 units per acre permitted with bonuses. Some of the bonus provisions have been deleted, because they were free bonuses as opposed to actual incentives. Mrs. Diehl noted her problem with the environmental standards, especially for trees. Mr. Tucker said that currently there are no standards for type of caliper and distance between plantings. This provision will probably mean more landscaping than the county is currently getting. He said it will work for subdivisions, which currently get landscaping only if presented as an RPN. He said that he also would like to include Section 3.14a.9 in the R-4 District for subdivisions or site plans. ( This section relates to recreational area requirements. ) Mr. McCan„ qu°ostioned if passive recreational areas would suffice for requirements of Section 3.14a.9 as opposed to construction of tennis courts, etc. He felt that this could become a burden. Furthermore, he questioned what will happen to these recreational areas if the lots are subdivided and sold. Mr. Payne replied that these recreational areas would be covered by maintenance agreements through the subdivision ordinance. Mrs. Diehl questioned if some minimum degree of landscaping would be required under the environmental standards. Mr. Tucker said that the site plan ordinance already provides for some landscaping, but this would be over and above what someone might do to meet the site plan requirements. Mrs. Diehl agreed this would be good criteria for determining the bonuses. Mr. McCann said that he does not see requiring landscaping for subdivisions, since the owners usually landscape their own lots. l411� 57- Mr. Payne pointed out that landscaping over the requirements of the site plan ordinance would be used as criteria for determining the bonuses. Mrs. Diehl said that she wants to make certain that the applicants will understand that some landscaping will be required to begin with, and that certain provisions can be made to achieve the bonuses in density. suggested Col. Washington / uchanging the density increases in Environmental Standards from 15% and 25% to 20% and 20%, especially in view of the internal roads. Mr. Keeler noted that the second paragraph in Section 3.14a.6.2 ( Develop- ment Standards ) should be deleted. Col. Washington then questioned who would want the dedications that would result from the subdivisions. What good are several small parcels dedicated to the county that are randomly scattered? Mr. Tucker replied that the dedications co;71d be used for additional road dedication. At this time the county cannot require additional road right-of-way. He pointed to how this provision could be of benefit in the Hydraulic Road instance. Mr. Skove established that dedication to public use does not include dedication to the Homeowners' association. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that water and sewer will be required for development at this density. Col. Washington then stated that in view of previous information with regarding to fire fighting, the maximum height requirement should be lowered. Mr. Keeler said that the Fire Prevention Officer had reviewed the KDA draft which suggested 100 feet and had recommended that this be lowered to 65 feet. the county. Dr. Moore noted the limited amount of fire protection assistance over Mr. Tucker agreed that if would be impossible to have a structure of 65 feet in an area such as Crozet because of this very limitation. Mr. Payne felt that the only place a building height of 65 feet might be permitted is where there is a great deal of open space to minimize the height impact. Col. Washington stated that a six -storey building would require an elevator and be very expensive, as well as a sprinkling system for fire protection. Therefore, he suggested lowering the maximum building height to 35 feet. There was Commission consensus to make the following changes in the R-6 District: 1. Omit Section 3.14a.6.1 - LOCATIONAL STANDARDS; 2. Omit the second paragraph in Section 3.14a.6.3 - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; 3. Change the heading in Section 3.14a.6.4 to read "LOW AND MODERATE COST HOUSING"; 4. Reword Section 3.14a.6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS as follows: "For maintenance of existing wooded areas important to the existing landscape character of the area, a density increase of 20% shall be granted. For provision of significant landscaping along existing and proposed streets, in addition to what may otherwise be required by the Site Plan Ordinance, in keeping /6,/-9 with the character of the area and/or to minimize impact of new development on the existing character of the area, a density increase of 20% shall be granted. Deciduous trees shall be of 11i" to 2" caliper; non -deciduous trees shall be 3' to 4' in height; all trees shall be planted on 15' centers, provided that this distance between trees may be increased depending upon the growth characteristics of the trees." 5. Amend the Maximum Structure Height in Section 3.14a.4 AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS from 65 feet to "35 feet". 6. Amend the wording of Section 3.14a.7 HEIGHT REGULATIONS as follows: "Structures may be erected to a height of thirty-five (35) feet. Chimneys, flues, cooling towers, flag poles, radio or communication towers or their accessory facilities are excluded from the height limitation contained herein; the setback requirement shall apply. Parapet walls are permitted up to four (4) feet above the limited height of the structure on which the walls rest; the setback requirements herein shall apply to parapet walls." The Commission consensus was also to add the following wording to the R-4 district: RECREATIONAL AREA REQUIREMENTS For any development exceeding 4 dwelling units/acre in gross density, fifty (50) square feet per dwelling unit of recreation area shall be provided on the property. Not more than 25% of such area shall be provided within buildings. Unless otherwise specifically permitted due to the peculiar nature of a particular development, such recreation area shall be developed proportionately with facilities appropriate to preschool, school -aged, and adult -age populations. R-10 and R-15 Residential Districts: Mr. Tucker noted the differences in these districts and the R-6, specifically the two additional uses by special use permit. He aj-so pointed out the bonus level. Col. Washington suggested shortening the table of Area and Bulk Regulations since there seems to be no difference in standard and cluster development except between the Standard Level and the Bonus Level. Mr. Payne pointed out that the benefit in leaving it as it is is to note that both standard and cluster development are available in both levels. Mr. Tucker suggested that the wording for Section 3.14b.6.1 be as just agreed upon by the Commission for the R-6 district. Col. Washington questioned what is "accessory uses" in these districts. Mr. Tucker replied that the uses would be swimming pools, clubhouses, storage buildings, laundromats for dwelling units within the district, garages for boats, etc. Mr. Tucker said that in Mrs. Graves' absence, he wanted the Commission to note her concern with bonuses, and the fact that the density of a district can approach the permitted density of the next highest district. Mr. Payne said that anything that is developed with the highest possible bonus level will in all likelihood be a high quality development, and will certainly be an excellent transitional provision. Al y Col. Washington stated that in these districts, with the higher density, he is inclined to leave the height limitation at 65 feet. There was consensus to do this. There were no other comments from the Commission on the R-10 and R-15 districts other than the following changes: 1. Section 3.14b.6.1 and Section 3.14c.6.1 should be amended with the following wording: "For maintenance of existing wooded areas important to the existing landscape character of the area, a density increase of 20% shall be granted. For provision of significant landscaping along existing and proposed streets, in addition to what may otherwise be required by the Site Plan Ordinance, in keeping with the character of the area and/or to minimize impact of new development on the existing character of the area, a density increase of 20% shall be granted. Deciduous trees shall be of 1�" to 2" caliper; non -deciduous trees shall be planted on 15' centers, provided that this distance between trees may be increased depending upon the growth characteristics of the trees." Continuation of Discussion of General Regulations: Mr. Tucker said that before too long the Commission may have to make a decision on the sign provisions if the Sign Committee has not made its report. Col. Washington said that he thought the Commission had decided it could proceed to public hearing with the existing provisions, and if necessary amend the Zoning Ordinance at a future date to provide for those suggestions of the Sign Committee. Mr. Tucker agreed that this was the consensus. Mr. Tucker said that the staff suggest deleting Section 4.1.4 Portable Dwelling, since this refers to mobile homes and there are already provisions for mobile homes in the ordinance. Sections 4.2.1 and 4.4 were deleted since they are taken care of in the building code. The staff suggested deleting Section 4.8.1, since it is unnecessary. In Section 4.8.4 there was consensus to change "2 feet" to "4 feet" and "3 feet" to "4 feet." This will permit architectural features into the setback. lot." The staff suggested defining lot, and not differentiating it from "irregular The entire Section 4.12 was deleted, since it was the feeling that the county should not be involved in matters between neighbors., Section 4.13.2.3 was to be deleted from the section and included in the definition section. 0 M Mr. Tucker advised the Commission at a later date he would bring the parking provisions for their review. The Commission reached a consensus of agreement with the staff recommendations just mentioned. The Commission then briefly discussed the Chamber of Commerce meeting and Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that he has forwarded to them the Chamber's report on the ordinance. He noted that some of the Chamber's concerns have already been addressed by the Commission. Mr. Huffman felt that at some later date the Commission will have to determine what sort of economic impact the zoning ordinance draft will have on the county. Mr. Tucker agreed that it would be appropriate for someone from the Real Estate Office to answer any of the Commission and/or public's questions on the tax base and the value of land under this draft proposal. With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 6:10 p.m. 171 19